Observers can follow rules, or not

Much has been made of the secretary of state’s office rejecting new rules the Worcester Election Commission crafted to curb voter intimidation and to maintain civility at the polls tomorrow.

The state chided the Election Commission early last week for suggesting it had authorized the new guidelines to manage the conduct of poll observers.

The state also directed the city to take immediate remedial action, and to submit to it a statement on what action was taken.

It is unfortunate that the controversial new rules were not reviewed by the secretary of state’s office before being published, but I am not about to bash the city for trying to prevent the chaos and voter intimidation that occurred at one inner-city precinct at which I was in attendance during the primary election.

At that precinct, I saw one observer directly confronting voters and their helpers. I saw this observer arguing with election workers, tying up the voting line and causing at least one voter waiting in line to leave without voting.

This happened although one of the cardinal rules for observers is, according to the state, that they “are to have absolutely no interaction with voters.”

It is understandable then that the city would want to prevent a repeat of such an occurrence tomorrow. Most of the steps they took reflected state recommendations. The commission’s mistake was to make the recommendations mandatory, instead of voluntary.

As Mayor Joe Petty noted at an Election Commission meeting Friday evening, the important focus should be on “allowing people to vote freely and without impediment.”

That is clearly what the Election Commission is trying to accomplish.

Among the new rules rejected by the secretary of state, the city had sought to require observers to provide photo identification, to wear badges provided by the warden, and to refrain from taking photographs, and from audio and videotaping within the polling station, and to notify election officials in writing prior to Election Day that they will be observing.

Ironically, these rules represent the state’s preferred management and conduct of observers at the polls, but it hasn’t made the rules mandatory.

Indeed, among the state’s recommendations for observers at the polls are the following:

Although there is no requirement that observers notify the local election official that they will be at the polls, it is strongly recommended that observers notify the local election official in writing prior to Election Day.

There is no requirement that observers wear a badge. “We do, however, encourage local election officials to provide observer stickers and request that the stickers be worn. We found that most observers comply with such a request.”

“Pictures and video are allowed within the polling places but certain conditions apply … It is the opinion of this office that cameras of any kind may not be used by observers at the check-in table to take pictures of individual voters as it is disruptive to the voting process.”

An observer may not take pictures of voters marking their ballot, and depositing their marked ballot in a manner in which the secrecy of the ballot may be compromised. An observer is not permitted to take pictures of voters in an effort to intimidate them.

On Friday evening, the Election Commission revised the rules to note that while the poll warden may request proof of identity, and may ask observers to wear a badge, the observers need not comply.

Given the intimidation at the polls during the primary elections, it seems to me that the state, rather than reject the sensible and progressive steps the city had taken to protect voters, should have made those rules mandatory.